The Universal Tradition Of Blood Libel Accusations
The Universal Tradition Of Blood Libel Accusations
As I'm posting this article Jews are currently celebrating the holiday of Passover. One of this holiday's main practices is the eating of Matzah. Matzah is an unleavened flatbread which as per Chop Happy is made of water, flour, salt, and oil1. However, if you read an article put out by MIFTAH you’ll find out about a secret ingredient, Christian baby blood. Although it’s true they later apologized for this article2, MIFTAH is in a long-standing tradition of Blood Libel, the accusation that Jewish people use blood, usually of Christian babies, in religious rituals. Recently with the rise of antisemitism and conspiracy theories such as QAnon, there has been an uptick in blood libel accusations. However, this isn’t anything new. Those learned in Jewish history will recall the constant blood libel accusations of the Middle Ages.
The most famous example of this comes from the Jews of Norwich who were falsely accused of killing William of Norwich, a young boy. The Hagiographer, Thomas of Monmouth claimed Jews had an international council where they chose a country to kill a child in. Cultic practices even emerged surrounding the claims of people like Thomas of Monmouth. William of Norwich became a martyr, was sainted and pilgrims brought offerings to his local church
There were further accusations in Gloucester and Bristol. Many Jews were later attacked due to such claims made by proponents of blood libel in places such as York. In cases such as that of St. Hugh Of Lincoln, there were executions put on. In that case, the monarchy even intervened to get confessions. Ballads would even be written about this situation such as the following:
“Down in merry Scotland
Where the rain it did come down,
There was two little boys went out one day
To have a game with the ball.
He kicked the ball so very, very high,
He kicked the ball so low;
’Twas pitched all over the Jew’s garden
Where the Jew lived just down below.
Out come one of the head Jews. He asked the little boy what he wanted. He said, “I kicked my ball in the garden.” “You come, you shall have your ball again.” He took the little boy and he laid ’m on the table and he stuck him like a sheep. He said, “Let me say these last few words before I die.” He said:
“You’ll dig my grave so very, very deep
Put a marble stone on my grave;
And if my tender mother should happen to come this way,
You tell her I’m asleep.”3
There was even a shrine built in Hugh’s honor that Edward I would later renovate to be decorated with the royal insignia. This royal endorsement of the Blood Libel makes the case of Hugh of Lincoln monumental
It’s not just England though, in continental Europe blood libel also was common. Thomas of Cantimpre, a flemish Catholic author writes in the book Bonum Universale de Apibus:
“It is quite certain that the Jews of every province annually decide by lot which congregation or city is to send Christian blood to the other congregations.”
This mirrors what was said by Thomas of Monmouth. In Blois France, Jews, both men and women, were burned to death over blood libel accusations. Cases like this happened all over Europe through the Renaissance, and kept happening.
But blood libel accusations were not a Medieval invention. In fact, they aren’t even a Christian invention. We see similar cases going back to the first century. Not only that though but blood libel accusations transcend Judaism as well.
The best example of Blood Libel accusations against non-Jews comes from Epiphanius of Salamis, a fourth-century bishop and polemicist. In Epiphanius’ The Paranion, he discusses the gnostics, an early Christian group with very different ideas from Nicene Christianity. He writes about some of the unethical acts of Gnosticism. For example their promiscuity, their practice of praying naked, and not fasting. On their promiscuity, he claims they expressly avoid having potential kids “since the devil is mocking people like these, and making fun of the creature fashioned by God.” What’s important to this article is what happens if they mistakenly have a child.
“But even though one of them should accidentally implant the seed of his natural emission prematurely and the woman becomes pregnant, listen to a more dreadful thing that such people venture to do. (5) They extract the fetus at the stage which is appropriate for their enterprise, take this aborted infant, and cut it up in a trough with a pestle. And they mix honey, pepper, and certain other perfumes and spices with it to keep from getting sick, and then all the revellers in this < herd > of swine and dogs assemble, and each eats a piece of the child with his fingers.27 (6) And now, after this cannibalism, they pray to God and say, “We were not mocked by the archon of lust, but have gathered the brother’s blunder up!” And this, if you please, is their idea of the “perfect Passover4.”5
What we see here is an aborted fetus being used in place of communion (with spices and honey, because the gnostics didn’t want to just eat a plain fetus). However, with the discovery of “gnostic”6 texts such as the Nag Hammadi Codex, we understand gnostic beliefs better and we do not see any evidence for the claims of Epiphanius. What’s more likely is that Epiphanius is exaggerating due to his hostile views towards gnostic ideas.
What’s interesting is that Epiphanius perfectly parallels modern blood libel. We can see this from how pro-life advocates use blood libel rhetoric. For example, Catholic writer E. Michael Jones claims abortion is a Jewish sacrificial ritual7. In both cases, someone claims that a group they don’t like is sacrificing fetuses. For Epiphanius, that group is the gnostics. For Jones, it’s the Jews and abortion advocates. But although these two are important examples of blood libel, they’re not at all the first. For that, we must look before medieval times. Specifically to Apion and Dio Cassius.8.
In Dio Cassius, a Roman historian’s book, Roman History, there is an account of a revolt of Jews in Cyrene, Egypt, and in Cyprus under Trajan. He mentions that Jewish soldiers would eat their victims and anoint themselves with the victim's blood.
The addition of the anointing adds a religious aspect to this accusation which will be elaborated on in the next example of Apion, where the religious connection becomes far more clear.
Apion, a first-century author and grammarian from Hellenized Egypt has no surviving works. However, Josephus, a Jewish Historian wrote a whole treatise on Apion helping us understand the beliefs of Apion. In this treatise, Against Apion, Josephus defends Judaism as a historically rooted religion. Josephus mentions a claim of Apion which he calls a “malicious slander upon us[The Jews] from the beginning to the end.”. It’s a story where a Greek captive of the Jews is found and gives the following account
“He said that he was a Greek and that, while travelling about the province for his livelihood, he was suddenly kidnapped by men of a foreign race and conveyed to the temple ; there he was shut up and seen by nobody, but was fattened on feasts of the most lavish description.”
The man eventually found out that it was the Jews who kidnapped him for ritual purposes. Josephus continues to explain Apion’s view:
“They would kidnap a Greek foreigner, fatten him up for a year, and then convey him to a wood, where they slew him, sacrificed his body with their customary ritual, partook of his flesh," and, while immolating the Greek, swore an oath of hostility to the Greeks. The remains of their victim were then thrown into a pit.”
Josephus goes on to nitpick the story, such as the emphasis on Greek nationality:
“Is there one of these nations whose citizens have not happened at some time or other to visit our country ? Why should Greeks be the only objects of our periodically repeated conspiracy and bloodthirsty assault ?”
He also comments on the impracticality
“Again, how is it conceivable that all Jews should assemble to partake of these victims, and that the flesh of one should suffice for so many thousand participants, as Apion asserts? Why in the world after discovering this man, whoever he was (his name is not given in the story), did not the king convey him in triumph to his country, when by so doing he might have gained a reputation for piety and rare devotion to the Greeks, and encountered Jewish hatred with the powerful support of public opinion”
Josephus gives the incredible line,
“But I refrain to pursue these inquiries; fools must be refuted, not by argument, but by facts.”9
He then goes on to prove definitively why this claim of Apion is undeniably wrong. The fact that the schematics of the Temple are open knowledge.
There are two important things to note about Apion’s claims. Firstly, they are inherently a political attack. We see this from what Josephus observes. Apions story specifies that the victim is of Greek nationality. This makes the alleged Jewish ritual not just a simple gross ritual but a specific attack on the Greeks.
Secondly, we should notice that this accusation directly targets the Jewish religion. It’s specifically a yearly thing as a “customary ritual”. This makes sense, the main point of variance between Jews, and everyone else in the ancient world is religious. In the Greek world, the Jews are different in the fact that they are not Pagan, and in the medieval world the Jews are different in the fact that they are not Christian. This variance allows room for slander.
From modern-day writers such as E. . Michael Jones and MIFTAH to medieval examples like St. Hugh of Lincoln and William of Norwich all the way back to Apion and Dio Cassius, we see a clear trend of false accusations about Jewish ritual slaughter and consumption of humans. Additionally, we see through the example of Epiphanius that this is not even exclusive to Judaism. Blood Libel is a universal claim in polemics. There are some lessons to be learned from this fact. Firstly, blood libel is the typical accusation one makes against a group they don’t like. Therefore, it's important to proceed with caution whenever one hears or reads that a group they don't like is invested in eating babies, especially if it's for some kind of ritual. However, in addition to that, we can learn a wider lesson about ancient sources as a whole. What we learn from these examples is that when you see a source commenting on a group that that source does not like, you should also proceed with caution. Next time you see your favorite ancient writer talking about the vile practices of a group that the author disagrees with, consider to yourself, is this author giving a historical account or is this another case of polemicists' common exaggerated accusations.
Jay. “How to Make Matzah at Home.” Chop Happy, 25 Mar. 2021, chophappy.com/holiday/how-to-make-matzah-at-home/.
“Palestinian Nonprofit Apologizes for Blood Libel Article | The Times of Israel.” The Times Of Israel, 2013, www.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-nonprofit-apologizes-for-blood-libel-article/.
“Mainly Norfolk: English Folk and Other GOOD Music.” Sir Hugh or the Jew’s Daughter / Little Sir Hugh / The Jews’s Garden (Roud 73; Child 155), mainlynorfolk.info/lloyd/songs/sirhughorthejewsdaughter.html. Accessed 19 Apr. 2024.
Either referring to communion which is a reflection of the Passover meal, or Easter which is initially called “Pascha”, it seems that the first makes more sense as this is not tied to any holiday making a reflection of Easter unlikely.
Epiphanius, and Frank Williams. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. I. SBL Press, 2017.
The very assumption of Epiphanius that there is one “gnostic” group is also doubtworthy. Among gnostics, there are Marcions, Sethians, Valentinians, and other groups. The gnostics were internally diverse.
Ziegler, Blake. “Antisemitism and the Abortion Debate.” Antisemitism and the Abortion Debate - The Observer, The Observer, 10 Nov. 2022, ndsmcobserver.com/2022/11/antisemitism-and-the-abortion-debate/.
Ziegler, Blake. “Antisemitism and the Abortion Debate.” Antisemitism and the Abortion Debate - The Observer, The Observer, 10 Nov. 2022, ndsmcobserver.com/2022/11/antisemitism-and-the-abortion-debate/.
Ehrman, Albert. “THE ORIGINS OF THE RITUAL MURDER ACCUSATION AND BLOOD LIBEL.” Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, vol. 15, no. 4, 1976, pp. 83–90. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23258406. Accessed 21 Apr. 2024.
Josephus, Against Apion, tr. by H. St. J. Thackeray, (London and New York, 1926), pp. 329-333, section 2:89-102